Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

46831Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Chattanooga

Expand Messages
  • SDE80@aol.com
    Oct 25, 2010
      Well, the whole point of Sherman assaulting the north end of the Ridge was to both capture Chickamauga Station and cut Bragg off from Longstreet at Knoxville.  That, too, would have made MR untenable.   Bragg properly discerned that was Grant's main effort and concentrated 4 divisions in a relatively small area.  He counted on the natural strength and defensibility of MR to try to hold the rest of it with three divisions.  A. P. Stewart's division basically had responsibility for three miles of ridge with only enough men in a single rank to hold a little over a mile.
      Sam Elliott
      In a message dated 10/25/2010 3:45:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, banbruner@... writes:

      I was thinking also of Sherman's force to the north which was much larger and much closer to Chickamauga Station.

      Bill Bruner

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, SDE80@... wrote:
      > Bragg would have indeed had a hard time holding MR with a Federal corps
      > (Hooker's "column" had three divisions" at Rossville. Of course, Grant's
      > original plan did not contemplate Hooker being a part of the attack, or Hooker
      > having more than one division.
      > Sam Elliott
      > In a message dated 10/25/2010 10:35:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      > banbruner@... writes:
      > I am looking forward to a trip in Nov. celebrating the Battle of
      > Chattanooga.
      > Looking the map in preparation, a peculiar thought occurred to me.
      > That once Lookout Mountain and Rossville had been taken Braggs position on
      > Missionary Ridge was untenable. With both Lookout and Chattanooga Vallies
      > in union control and large forces on both north and southern flanks in easy
      > position to move to his (Braggs) rear and cut his communications and line
      > of retreat he would have been forced to retire after dark on the 15th even
      > if no charge had been made on his front.
      > I'm wondering if this analysis has been put forth before or if I am
      > completely wrongheaded.
      > Bill Bruner

    • Show all 59 messages in this topic